In the last issue of The Change Agents, we talked about the Strength of Community Framework and the role of a sense of community. The framework proposes expanding the boundaries of community to be more inclusive so that more and more people see themselves as part of a larger and growing community. A stronger sense of community enables them to become more inclined to view someone else’s triumphs, concerns, and struggles as if they were their own. As such, they’ll become more compelled to act collectively, care for one another, connect, exert control over their community conditions, and enhance their economic conditions (i.e., more cash) so that everyone can thrive. To achieve this, the framework emphasized the importance of building intergroup relationships or bridges between two or more groups of people or communities.
It is important to note that we still don’t know a lot about the science of building intergroup relationships or bridges because the nature of the work is so dependent on context (i.e., history of groups involved, political environment, roots of conflict, policies, narratives, public will, capacity, and more) (English, 2024; Pfister, Wolfer, & Hewstone, 2020). We also don’t know enough about whether and how intergroup relationship building can benefit high-conflict situations or contribute to structural changes that can move our society toward equity and social justice (Wright, Tropp, & Mazziota, 2017). What we do know, is that we must keep trying to build bridges because we CAN’T afford not to. From disagreements between two individuals that can be distorted to represent conflict between two racial groups to acts of genocide by one group of people toward another, and from rural and urban communities in the United States to other parts of the world, we are witnessing polarization of all sorts.
Yet, many of us remain hopeful. Robert Samuels and Toluse Olorunnipa’s article “Four Years Later, Has the Racial-Justice Movement Lost the Fight?” (The Washington Post, May 25, 2024) and Ben McBride’s book, Troubling the Water, reminded me to be optimistic and to keep building bridges, no matter the outcome. So, I pulled out a set of action principles that Community Science developed more than two decades ago, based on findings from research studies and evaluations of initiatives designed to build intergroup relationships. These principles were created as part of a national project funded by the Ford and Mott Foundations to strengthen neighborhoods by building relationships between community residents who lived in a place for a long time and residents from different parts of the world who recently settled in the same place (see Chavis, Lee, & Buchanan, 2001). The project, as well as several others after, incorporated these principles into grantmaking guidelines and funding criteria.
The principles developed in 2001 are still relevant today. We updated them to reflect more recent knowledge and experiences, but the essence remained the same. In all our experiences doing community change work in places that have undergone demographic transformation due to gentrification, global migration, and other forces, we’ve observed positive or negative outcomes depending on whether these principles were present. We cannot determine if there is a sequence of how each should be introduced, if one is more essential than another, or how sustainable the outcomes were. We simply believe that sharing can only help others try them and advance our collective knowledge about intergroup relationship and bridge building.
Principles
Principle 1: Groups must identify an important common issue and work toward common goals to address it. Each group must have a distinct and clear role that reflects its unique and complementary strength.
This principle is perhaps the most obvious in intergroup relationship building. It is referred to in psychological literature as a superordinate goal (Brewer, 1996; Brown & Wade, 1987; Sherif & Sherif, 1969; Stephan & Stephan, 2001). In community settings, this shows up as coalition building and agenda setting around common concerns. Nine national social justice organizations came together to form the Anchor Collaborative for Racial Equity. They shared a common concern about communities of color’s lack of access to resources and opportunities. They leveraged their unique and collective strengths to successfully increase their participation in Census 2020 and national and local elections.
Principle 2: People and organizations representing different groups need to be brought together as equals in terms of power, respect, and importance.
Successful community efforts have recognized the importance of people representing different groups having contact with one another as equals (English, 2024). In community change work, this is about involving local grassroots and informal leaders and representatives of formal institutions as equals. Subtle forms of discrimination and stereotyping that occur informally and daily must be addressed and reduced. We have found that this principle is one of the hardest to implement because it requires us to work through power differences and conflict at the interpersonal, institutional, and community levels. This takes time, tenacity, and commitment by all parties.
Principle 3: There needs to be an opportunity for members of groups to get to know one another as individuals, identify similarities, and at the same time, appreciate each group’s history, circumstances, and unique characteristics. Group differences should be recognized and transformed into positive outcomes.
Research findings have supported the importance of interaction that provides an opportunity for people to get to know one another (English, 2024; Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985). This is typically referred to in the psychological literature as the Contact Theory (Allport, 1954). This principle is less about power (Principle 2) and more about people getting to know one another; correcting inaccurate perceptions about one another’s values, cultures, and experiences; developing genuine empathy; and expanding the makeup of “us.”
Studies have also shown that when people perceive similarities with people from other groups, they tend to be more willing to get to know them (Osbeck, Moghaddam, & Perreault, 1997). This draws into question the “celebration of differences” and other facets of multiculturalism that tend to inadvertently emphasize dissimilarity. At the same time, identifying similarities should not be done at the cost of ignoring power differences and the circumstances and contexts that shape people’s values, traditions, and experiences (Bond, 1999; Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Differences must be named and transformed into opportunities for positive outcomes (McBride, 2023). In short, it’s not about identifying similarities or differences, but similarities and differences.
Examples from our evaluations include a project that brought together people from different racial and ethnic groups to share a commercial kitchen they could use for different neighborhood events. In the process, they learned about one another’s food traditions, developed relationships across religion and culture, and started a catering business. In another example, Black and African immigrant leaders came together to improve their neighborhood and in the process, the Black leaders taught their African neighbors about the history of the neighborhood that the latter resettled in, and the African leaders helped their Black neighbors understand their history and why they emigrated to the U.S. — thus correcting misperceptions and appreciating how the Civil Rights Movement paved the way for many benefits that immigrants experience today.
Principle 4: Conflicts need to be identified, respected, and transformed into improved capacity and relations.
Research about groups, communities, and sustainable bridging and sense of community support the importance of this principle (Lederach, 1997, 2003; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 1993; Quiroz, 1995). Conflict must be viewed as natural and a healthy characteristic of bridging. Conflict in this context can be anything from disagreements between group representatives due to some misunderstanding to distrust between two communities due to a significant event in the past or perceived intractable differences (e.g., religion, ethnicity). This means that organizations doing bridging and intergroup relationship building work must be prepared for conflict. We have repeatedly found in our evaluations that most organizations, from funders to implementers, are not prepared for or have the capacity to deal with conflicts when they arise. They assume too easily that no matter the differences, if people share similar values and goals, they will get along.
Principle 5: Successfully completed collective action not only improves the communities that groups live in, but also strengthens their relationships.
The more positive the experience in relationships, the greater the bond. In other words, success facilitates cohesion (Blanchard, Adelman, & Cook, 1975) and the desire to work across groups. The success can also contribute to increased recognition of inequities experienced by some groups of people and the importance of collective action and greater advocacy for equity and social justice for all (Pettigrew, 2011). At the same time, any disruptions that cause failure or negative consequences, can also motivate people to seek an explanation and typically, members of another group serve as a source of blame (Worchel & Norvel, 1980). For instance, when principles 1 through 4 are not practiced, it is easy for receiving or long-time community members to have incorrect assumptions and perceptions about immigrants and blame them for the negative circumstances they experience. Immigrants have been perceived as “stealing” jobs from Americans when data have shown the contrary (Hoban, 2017).
To ensure successful collective action, groups at all levels (team, organizational, and community) must focus on their interdependence, accountability to the larger group, attention to the needs and demands of the group’s overall goals, and awareness of one’s impact on others (Bond, 1998). Such focus can help create a “culture of connection” that is “empathetic, reciprocal, and sustained over time” (Bond, 1998).
Principle 6: Relationships must be sustainable at multiple levels (between individuals, groups, institutions, and communities) to support the process for strengthening intergroup relationships.
Relationships must be ongoing to effect long-term change. It takes time for groups to develop relationships and trust that will not be harmed or damaged by a small event or conflict. For this principle to be possible, principles 1 through 5 must be present. In the Strengthening Community Framework, these relationships help bonding among members of a group, bridging between members of two or more groups, and linking to institutions that support the groups.
Principle 7: Effective facilitation is essential.
Intergroup relationship building will not happen on its own. Conflicts will not go away on their own. Capacity to leverage intergroup contact and respond to conflict is critical (Pfister, Wolfer, & Hewstone, 2020), and we have found in our studies that effective facilitation is one of the most important capacities required. Trained, experienced, and highly skilled facilitators are essential. I recall a story many years ago when a graduate student described a neighborhood project he took on as part of a course. He ran into a conflict between community members and tried to address it, but he didn’t have the skills yet. Intergroup conflict is messy and can have serious consequences; it takes trained facilitators to help.
Principle 8: There must be institutional support to build intergroup relationships that will expand community boundaries.
If individuals were left alone to the task of building intergroup relationships, they tend not to do so. Policies must be institutionalized that can support interaction and not segregation (Khmelkov & Hallinan, 1999). Support from institutions (e.g., local governments, funders, the media, federal government agencies, intermediary organizations, and community networks) is instrumental in helping individuals who do bridging work and to promote and facilitate constructive efforts to strengthen intergroup relationships. Also, as principle 7 indicates, effective facilitation is key.
In summary, we must build intergroup relationships and bridges to create a shared humanity. Ben McBride (2023) talks about shared humanity as a circle of human concern that is large enough to hold all our similarities, differences, as well as suffering. Only then can we create a sense of community strong enough to continuously advance equity and social justice for all. It’s uncomfortable. It’s messy. It’s risky. But we can’t afford not to try.
References
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blanchard, F. A., Adelman, L., & Cook, S. W. (1975). Effect of group success and failure upon interpersonal attraction in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31 (6), 1020-1030.
Bond, M. A. (1998). Diversity dilemmas at work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 7 (3), 252-268.
Bond, M. A. (1999). Gender, race, and class in organizational contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27 (3), 327-355.
Brewer, M. B. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20 (3/4), 291-303.
Brown, R., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behavior: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 131-142.
Chavis, D., Lee K., & Buchanan, R. (2001). Principles for Intergroup Projects: A First Look. Association for the Study and Development of Community, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
English, J. (2024). The “content” of intergroup contact: Lessons from the Denton Women’s Interracial Fellowship. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1-19.
Hoban, B. (2017, August 24). Do Immigrants “Steal” Jobs from American Workers” Brookings Now. Downloadable from https://www.brookings.edu/articles/do-immigrants-steal-jobs-from-american-workers/
Khamelkov, V.T. & Hallinan, M.T. (1999). Organizational effects on race relations in schools. Journal of Social Issues, 55 (4), 627-645.
Lederach, P. (2003). Conflict transformation. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond Intractability. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, Conflict Information Consortium.
Lederach, J. P. (1997) Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation In Divided Societies. Washington, DC: United Sates Peace Institute.
McBride, B. (2023). Troubling The Water. Minneapolis, MN: Broadleaf Books.
Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analogue. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 63-79.
Mizrahi, T. and Rosenthal, B.B. (1993). Managing Dynamic Tensions in Social Change Coalitions. In T. Mizrahi & J. Morrison (Eds.), Community and Social Administration: Advances, Trends and Emerging Principles. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Osbeck, L. M., Moghaddam, F. M., & Perreault, S. (1997). Similarity and attraction among majority and minority groups in a multicultural context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 21(1), 113-123.
Quiroz, J. T. (1995). Together in Our Differences. Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum.
Pettigrew, T.F. (2011). Toward sustainable psychological interventions for change. Peace and Conflict, 17, 179-192.
Pfister, M., Wolfer, R., & Hewtone, M. (2020). Contact capacity and its effect on intergroup relations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11 (1), 7-15.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social Psychology, New York: Harper and Row.
Stephan, W. & Stephan, C.W. (2001). Improving Intergroup Relations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Worchel, S., & Norvell, N. (1980). Effect of perceived environmental conditions during cooperation on intergroup attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 764-772.
Wright, S., Tropp, L., & Mazziota, A. (2017). Contact and intergroup conflict: New ideas for the road ahead. Peace and Conflict, 23 (3), 317-327.
About The Author
Kien S. Lee, PhD, Vice President of Consulting, has expertise in research, evaluation, and other capacity building in the areas of equity, inclusion, and cultural competency, as they pertain to health disparities, immigrant integration, civic participation, leadership development, and community and systems change. Kien’s commitment to bridge science, practice, and social change led to her appointment to Governor Martin O’Malley’s Commission to study the impact of immigration on Maryland and receive the Distinguished Contributions to Practice in Community Psychology award.